Contractual arbitration clause under the Central Act prevailed over the Bihar Tribunal mechanism; earlier referral order was recalled.

Where a works contract expressly provides for arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, that contractual choice governs and is not displaced by the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008. Relying on Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. and Nilkamal Ltd., the Patna HC held that the State Act did not override the agreed Central Act mechanism on these facts. The earlier direction to approach the Bihar Tribunal therefore could not stand, and the review was allowed with recall of that order.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement, the dispute was required to be referred under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or under the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, and whether the earlier order directing the petitioner to approach the Tribunal required review.

Analysis: The agreement specifically provided for arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court relied on the binding Supreme Court decision in Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. and the earlier view of this Court in Nilkamal Ltd. to hold that where the contract stipulates arbitration under the Central Act, the State Act does not displace that contractual choice. The Bihar Act was also treated as not prevailing over the Central Act in the present factual matrix, particularly since the dispute resolution clause expressly invoked the Central Act. In consequence, the earlier direction requiring recourse to the Bihar Tribunal could not stand.

Conclusion: The dispute was held to be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, not by the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, and the review was allowed with recall of the earlier order.

---